This is true in our case (but the lower income earner is my husband). The reason he does work (even though we are not really better off financially (with day care etc) is because for a male it is harder to re-enter the workforce after a break and I have a personal objection to being supported when we can support ourselves.

I'm going back next feb three days a week....for various reasons we are going down the nanny path, cash in hand so won't get anything back from the govt...I will net $58 a day.....not really worth it but I figure he won't be in expensive care like that forever, I am keeping my skills up, getting super paid.....racking up"time served" to hopefully get long service łeave at some point ....meh, ask me next march if I think it's worth it!

I hate stories like this. For one thing, it assumes that all the costs of childcare come out of the woman's pay. Where are the fathers in this? A dual income should be looked at on a per family basis, not just on one person's wage. Secondly, it ignores the benefits of women remaining in work. Children are only in child care for a short period of time, so the expenditure is finite, but has benefits such as retaining employability and building superannuation. Quite frankly, I think this sort of thing is an excuse that some women use to avoid having to go back to work (flame suit firmly on).

Our situation is similar to the high income couple with on child in the article (though we make slightly less than they do). I would agree that after childcare I bring home about 60% of my net pay. For us, it makes sense that I work.

But for me personally, working is not about money. I am not SAHM material and find I need the balance and stimulation that going to work provides me. Working makes *me* a better mother. So as long as my wage covers child care fees, I will continue to work without guilt.

Secondly, it ignores the benefits of women remaining in work. Children are only in child care for a short period of time, so the expenditure is finite, but has benefits such as retaining employability and building superannuation. Quite frankly, I think this sort of thing is an excuse that some women use to avoid having to go back to work (flame suit firmly on).

I somewhat agree. I worked for many reasons, few of them financial.

Now that I have school age children and don't pay child care costs anyway, I really value the way my resume looks with my employment history, the skills I gained in that working period and the contacts I made (invaluable).

Casime yes you could try and divide costs across both incomes. We were looking at what me working would add to the household bottom line. Then offsetting that against the disruption to the household etc.

As DH working is not the change we were looking at the impact on my income only.

I hate stories like this. For one thing, it assumes that all the costs of childcare come out of the woman's pay. Where are the fathers in this? A dual income should be looked at on a per family basis, not just on one person's wage. Secondly, it ignores the benefits of women remaining in work. Children are only in child care for a short period of time, so the expenditure is finite, but has benefits such as retaining employability and building superannuation. Quite frankly, I think this sort of thing is an excuse that some women use to avoid having to go back to work (flame suit firmly on).

I agree a little bit but if I am not working my DH's wage is already budgeted. If I return to work we need to weigh up the extra petrol I would, any tolls and child care.

The article highlights many of the reasons the last few years have been demoralizing for me at times. Working casually and earning almost nothing take home with 2 in daycare was a killer. Now the burden has reduced to one in school and one in care it's a blessed relief tbh.

At times when I was earning negatives paying for care on public holidays and not working it was tough. We would do the sums and DH would suggest to take the stress off of us then maybe I should quit.

At no time was I going to stop work. For me personally I knew that when the time came that they would both be at school I would still be n the workforce. That's the light at the end of the tunnel.

And like PP casime, it peeves me that Childcare costs are assumed to be absorbed by the woman's wage.

Casime yes you could try and divide costs across both incomes. We were looking at what me working would add to the household bottom line. Then offsetting that against the disruption to the household etc.

As DH working is not the change we were looking at the impact on my income only.

Exactly - incremental analysis. How much better off will the household be.

Sure, if you run separate finances both income earners should contribute to child care costs, but this is a separate issue to the increase in financial resources to the family by having both parents working.

I hate stories like this. For one thing, it assumes that all the costs of childcare come out of the woman's pay. Where are the fathers in this? A dual income should be looked at on a per family basis, not just on one person's wage. Secondly, it ignores the benefits of women remaining in work. Children are only in child care for a short period of time, so the expenditure is finite, but has benefits such as retaining employability and building superannuation. Quite frankly, I think this sort of thing is an excuse that some women use to avoid having to go back to work (flame suit firmly on).

this this this this this

As the article states, your brain doesn't fall out with the placenta ladies.

Ok brighton14 as a household with me returning to work the household would be better off $20 per week.

But that's if you're looking at it purely from a "this week" perspective, and not a long term one. How much will it end up costing you as a family if you are out of work for several years when you do decide to return to the workforce because you have a gap on your resume? In some careers, there will be very expensive professional development and retraining courses required before you can resume your career. Consider the loss of your superannuation now when you decide to retire (taking in to account loss of interest for all those years as well). It's very short sighted to only look at the now and not at the future.

I hate stories like this. For one thing, it assumes that all the costs of childcare come out of the woman's pay. Where are the fathers in this? A dual income should be looked at on a per family basis, not just on one person's wage. Secondly, it ignores the benefits of women remaining in work. Children are only in child care for a short period of time, so the expenditure is finite, but has benefits such as retaining employability and building superannuation. Quite frankly, I think this sort of thing is an excuse that some women use to avoid having to go back to work (flame suit firmly on).

I somewhat agree with this but there are always exceptions. I am currently a SAHM and forsee myself in this role for the next two to four years. My skills are in a very horizontal industry. That is, the pay scale does not increase dramatically the more experience yoy have. I left earning the max $60k or so a year. It is a high-demand industry and has always been extremely easy industry to exit and re-enter so in my case, I will not be losing any career position by taking a few years out. Also, it is not an industry where you cannot do part-time work or job share. That would be impossible, simply by the nature of the work so there is no hapy medium for me to ease myself back in.

As far as super goes, DH (small business owner) and I have a system of trusts set up. We are actually contributing more into my personal super each year I am a SAHM than what I was putting in as a PAYE employee. So in our case, I had no industry position I needed to maintain, the pay was not of a level where it would be worth my while to re-enter, part time work was not an option and my super is still increasing. I also own a rental property outright in my own name so numerous repair work aside, I always have a small income stream in my own name, even being a SAHM.

Our situation is unique but there would be a lot of SAHMs who would have their own unique situation as well. Each to their own, and all that.

I hate stories like this. For one thing, it assumes that all the costs of childcare come out of the woman's pay. Where are the fathers in this? A dual income should be looked at on a per family basis, not just on one person's wage. Secondly, it ignores the benefits of women remaining in work. Children are only in child care for a short period of time, so the expenditure is finite, but has benefits such as retaining employability and building superannuation. Quite frankly, I think this sort of thing is an excuse that some women use to avoid having to go back to work (flame suit firmly on).

Completely agree, this is how we have always arranged things, but I suspect this only applies to women with careers rather than jobs *borrows the flame suit*

I hate stories like this. For one thing, it assumes that all the costs of childcare come out of the woman's pay. Where are the fathers in this? A dual income should be looked at on a per family basis, not just on one person's wage. Secondly, it ignores the benefits of women remaining in work. Children are only in child care for a short period of time, so the expenditure is finite, but has benefits such as retaining employability and building superannuation. Quite frankly, I think this sort of thing is an excuse that some women use to avoid having to go back to work (flame suit firmly on).

I disagree, My husband works FIFO, and I choose to work. If I did not work I would not have to pay childcare, I do and hence in my mind childcare directly relates to the amount I earn.

I’m not expecting you to be as calm as you might be right now. What I mean is that if your panic levels are through the roof during a stressful situation, let’s bring them down to just under the ceiling.

To celebrate the April 1 release of Holly's Magic Wand on DVD and Digital, we are giving away five DVD packs featuring the newest installment of Ben & Holly's Little Kingdom Holly's Magic Wand and many more hours of family entertainment! Enter Now!

To celebrate the April 1 release of Holly's Magic Wand on DVD and Digital, Essential Baby and Entertainment One are giving away five bumper DVD packs featuring the newest installment of Ben & Holly's Little Kingdom Holly's Magic Wand and many more hours of family entertainment! Enter Now!

When a couple discovers they're expecting multiples, the dad can sometimes be almost forgotten in all the excitement and preparation. But one group offers a space just for dads of twins and higher-order multiples.

Pregnant women will for the first time have access to locally analysed, accurate, non-invasive pre-natal genetic testing when the first Australian clinic to offer the services opens its doors next week.

Not a day under 65 and a lifetime of struggle! That's the look of these newborns, who look adorably older than their real age. Social networking site Reddit recently featured user submissions of adorable grandbabies, here are our favourites.

A French court may have ruled out Nutella as a baby name, but that doesn't have to stop you from taking inspiration from the supermarket (or bottle shop). See what parents in the US have chosen for their delicious little ones.